In Mongolia, as in Aga, herders practice the extensive simultaneous husbandry of several species. This multispecies feature allows them to exploit not only the products of their animals but also pastures in a complementary way. Their relation with the environment plays a major role in shaping the relationship between humans and animals, forming a nomadic community. This community shares living places – pastures, encampments, birthplace (nutag/nyutag) – to which it becomes attached. The absence of enclosures and intense watching gives the livestock a great deal of freedom and forces it to develop autonomy – manifested in the animals’ ability to return to the encampment independently, to defend themselves from predators and to find their own food on the pastures. This nomadic way of life and the community formed by Mongolian and Buryat herders is characterized by great flexibility. Just as nomadism among the Mongols is governed by alternating periods of grouping and dispersal, the herders and their animals meet and separate for varying lengths of time, depending on the species and roles of the individuals.

Without claiming that the Khalkh Mongolians and the Aga Buryats form homogeneous groups – for there are significant differences in Mongolia depending on whether herders live in the steppe, desert or mountains, or on the size of the herds, for example, whereas in Aga the orientation of the husbandry and whether or not it is attached to a cooperative determine many possible variations – there are marked trends in both terrains, making it possible to differentiate them into two main groups. While Mongolian husbandry is essentially domestic, Buryat livestock farming is market oriented (for private breeders) or wage-based (for pastoralists who are members of a cooperative). Mongolian pastoralists advocate public (or at least collective) ownership of the land to maintain flexibility, while Buryat herders are forced to become land owners, reducing their flexibility along with their grazing space.

In Aga, the Russian influence is not limited to an emphasis on the collective structures of the Soviet legacy: the presence of Russian auxiliaries on the Buryat stations also contributes to changing the relationship with animals, in particular to strengthening the emotional bonds that diminish animal autonomy.